Forum:Brainstorming
So where are we going? What could be done, what should be done? Just throwing ideas around itt. ---- Growth rates One idea I had: let's cut the inherited stats by 50% and rework the growth rates. Now some will say: but DD that just means more grinding. And sure, it won't make running through the story any faster, but i think it could make the game more interesting if not pretty much every late game monster is born to get 999 everything. Having to choose if one prefers to be able to take a punch or hit hard, if a healer should have more def or some immunities... :We can probably all agree that stat growth and exp growth rates need to be tweaked. The differences between rate 0 and rate 31 are ridiculous in both of those structures. As to cutting inherited stats, I'm interested but wary. I would miss breed spamming but I agree that it would make roles more apparent. It mostly worries me because of how hard it would punish low level breeds. At that point it might even be prudent to increase the minimum level for monsters to breed so that players are less likely to completely screw themselves over. Are you just bouncing mechanical ideas to use in any hack, or were you specifically gearing toward a collaborative project? (Just asking cuz if it's the latter we'd need a new topic in game mods. :P)--Bcrobert (talk) 02:25, March 5, 2014 (UTC) :: Cutting the stats sounds easy but I have a feeling the (a+b)/4 is done right with some shifting so it might actually be quite hard to change that piece of code to (a+b)/8. I know I read that code a long long time ago but I have no pointers atm. The question is more if it is even a good idea? Weakening low level breeds is a concern, yes, but I have a feeling they are too strong. And the high baseline is just ridiculous later in the game. If we change exp growth we could offset the grindiness such a change would bring. Leveling newly hatched monsters becomes more important, but easier. Also it kinda kills the whole: I want monster x but i will grind its parents first, so it is born much stronger. With the lowered stat inheritance breeding a bit earlier is a better idea, as all levels beyond what you need for the skills only have a very small influence on the child and the exp/stat gain ratio goes down the drain quickly. Reworking the growth rates.. well that is something a drafting board. I have to go now, running late. DwM2 DD (talk) 06:57, March 5, 2014 (UTC) :::You have to remember that a monster baby can potentially be weaker than its parents were. So let's say my monsters have 500 in each stat at level 20. 500+500/8 is a meager 125. This particular baby would have 19 levels to get 375 points back in each stat. Even at growth rate 31, that won't happen. This is why I say it 'punishes' low level breeding much more than the current formula. Instead of breeding to make stronger monsters, it could become a chore to breed monsters that merely break even.--Bcrobert (talk) 08:11, March 5, 2014 (UTC) ::::I ran the math and agree. The main problem is not that it punishes low level breeding more, I could live with that, but that it changes the definition of "low level" by a factor of 3 making it a grindfest to get out of it. DwM2 DD (talk) 17:40, March 5, 2014 (UTC) Growth rates 2 Here's another thought for the brainstorming page. If the game were rebalanced, how should stat growth be retooled? I can think of two main ways to do this: 1. Divide the growth rates up into groups. For example, 4 groups. 0-7, 8-15, 16-23, 24-31. Each group would represent a total gain over the monster's lifetime. The individual rates within the group could be used to individualize the monsters; like making monsters that grow fast at low levels and slowly at high levels. This is similar to the way the original game handles it; it would just be more organized and balanced. Pros: Monsters are more unique. Feels more like the base game. Gives us an excuse to utilize all 32 schemes. Cons: Harder to judge a monster's strengths by stat per level. Leads to some illogical/awkward situations. Makes roles less significant. 2. Have each monster gain its stats in the same general range no matter what level it is. A monster that gains 1-3 MP per level will never suddenly start gaining 20 MP per level. This is how most other games would handle leveling. Pros: Easier to judge a monster's strengths by stat per level. Much more logical progression. Makes roles more significant. Cons: Monsters are less unique. Feels more like a Pokemon game. Makes 32 schemes feel like serious overkill. I would lean toward the latter system just because I like for games to feel natural and intuitive. It doesn't make sense that my wizard who always had high MP and wisdom is suddenly gaining more attack and HP than my warrior.Bcrobert (talk) 10:36, March 5, 2014 (UTC) Proposed growth scheme I've got the rough concept of a growth scheme that I feel is fairly balanced. If anyone has a minute to look this over I would really appreciate some feedback or counter-suggestions. Editing these is a huge time investment, after all, so I'd rather not get started if there's a glaring gap in my reasoning. Note that this scheme works best when using 20+ stat growth rates and 6+ exp growth rates. (Of course we have 32 of each by default, so I don't see that being a problem.) First I would suggest 20 steady growth rates based on average stat gain per level (statPlvl). These rates would differ by 0.5 statPlvl each. They would only be skewed as a result of the maximum number of level ups being 98, but not greatly skewed regardless. Examples: 0.5 statPlvl Pattern: 1 1 0 0 . . . 1.0 statPlvl Pattern: 2 1 0 1 . . . 1.5 statPlvl Pattern: 1 1 3 0 2 2 . . . 2.0 statPlvl Pattern: 3 2 1 2 . . . 2.5 statPlvl Pattern: 2 2 4 1 3 3 . . . After these are set, each monster could have the total of its six stat growth rates based on its rarity and rightful power level. My initial thinking is: 24: Super common (IE Dracky) 30: Common (IE CactiBall) 33: Uncommon (IE Golem) 36: Rare (IE CaptDead) 42: Legendary (IE EgDracil) 48: Top Tier (IE DeathMore3) Of course these don't have to be accurate to the point since that could make the tiers intrusive to gameplay, but you get the idea. So here are a few possible stat growths, to illustrate. These are organized by statPlvl: Dracky 4.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.5 CactiBall 4.5 | 3.5 | 5.5 | 4.5 | 6.5 | 5.5 Golem 8.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 7.5 | 4.0 | 3.5 CaptDead 6.5 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 5.5 | 4.0 EgDracil 7.5 | 9.5 | 6.5 | 8.5 | 4.0 | 6.0 DeathMore3 6.0 | 10.0| 9.0 | 8.5 | 7.0 | 8.0 Now DeathMore3 is undeniably better than Dracky. But this also means Dracky becomes virtually useless! UNLESS it grows faster, thus allowing it to breed up with less time invested. So I propose that the exp growth naturally have a negative correlation with stat growth. Put simply, if DeathMore3 is twice as strong as Dracky but levels half as fast, then you'll really only want DeathMore3 at the end of a breeding chain. Which works out just fine since that's where he belongs. This isn't a very polished system, but I think it should produce a balanced model if we use stat gain per experience point to diagnose it. This leaves the remaining 11 growth rates for use on monsters that grow faster or slower at different points in their lifetime, and leaves a whopping 26 experience rates untouched. In other words, plenty of room for customization by using the core growth rates as a control group.